Babylon 5: The Gathering/Midnight on the Firing Line

[Scififan]

I liked in Midnight on the Firing Line where Sinclair calls out G'Kar for the sneak attack on the Centauri. That it is the last act of a coward.

Odd choice of words. G'Kar demonstrated more than once that he's not a coward. He didn't always behave decently, but I don't recall anything much I could call cowardly.

"We've had plenty of experience with sneak attacks. Pearl Harbor, the terrorists' nuking of San Diego, the destruction of our first Mars colony. It's a long and bloody history. Do you know what we learned from it? That a sneak attack is the first resort of a coward."

[clearspira]

I liked in Midnight on the Firing Line where Sinclair calls out G'Kar for the sneak attack on the Centauri. That it is the last act of a coward.

Odd choice of words. G'Kar demonstrated more than once that he's not a coward. He didn't always behave decently, but I don't recall anything much I could call cowardly.

"We've had plenty of experience with sneak attacks. Pearl Harbor, the terrorists' nuking of San Diego, the destruction of our first Mars colony. It's a long and bloody history. Do you know what we learned from it? That a sneak attack is the first resort of a coward."

That is too black and white for my liking. D-Day could be argued to be a sneak attack. The battle of Trenton. The battle of Stamford Bridge. The Trojan Horse. The Tet Offensive. That is just off the top of my head.

Is the dividing line here that it MUST be the opening battle of a war to qualify? Because that too is a shaky concept. Pearl Harbor may have been the start of the war for America, but it wasn't actually the start of the war as far as everyone else was concerned. America was very happy to sell arms to Britain to help kill Germans. America was sending volunteers to the RAF. America helped draft the Treaty of Versaille which greatly contributed to the war. This is "America is not at war with Russia but is happily arming Ukraine to kill Russians" all over again. That is a thin line and we all know it. At what point have your hands become so bloodied that ink on a document declaring war has begun is just a formality?

Does it have to only involve sneak attacks by terrorists to qualify? Again, shaky. All depends on who we think are the heroes or the villains. All depends on the side that you are on. The French Resistance were terrorists as far as the Germans were concerned. Nelson Mandela was a terrorist as far as Apartheid Africa was concerned. That's the thing about terrorism - all too often it is whatever the winner says it is. How do you think George Washington would be considered today if he lost against the British?

[McAvoy]

Sneak attacks during war is a legitimate tactic. It saves the lives of your men and equipment and even time to achieve your objective. The days of sneak attacks being considered dishonorable during war died long ago.

Sneak attacks without war is still considered a highly dishonest tactic even if the same reasons above would be achieved. I get it, it does seem bit muddled on the difference.

I guess it depends on who you think is the good guy in the sneak attack.

[TheGreenMan]

"The days of sneak attacks being considered dishonorable during war died long ago."
Was there any day when it was? Other than as some vague ideal spouted by politicians, poets, and psychologists.

The Battle of Lake Trasimene.




edited to replace "physiologist" with "psychologist".

[McAvoy]

"The days of sneak attacks being considered dishonorable during war died long ago."
Was there any day when it was? Other than as some vague ideal spouted by politicians, poets, and physiologists.

The Battle of Lake Trasimene.

I said that generally without real thiught if it was true. Like I said during war sneak attacks are valid tactics because it saves lives, equipment and achieves your goal quicker.

Offhand, the only time I can think of it was during the days of the musket when you are supposed to literally line up against each other and fire until someone wins due to retreat or the opposing force loses too many men. Firing at officers was considered dishonorable but not a sneak attack. But attack the opposing force while they are marching before they can form ranks was.

[Riedquat]

"We've had plenty of experience with sneak attacks. Pearl Harbor, the terrorists' nuking of San Diego, the destruction of our first Mars colony. It's a long and bloody history. Do you know what we learned from it? That a sneak attack is the first resort of a coward."

And that's a sentiment I've always had an issue with. Why "coward"? If it's war then, sure, charging headlong at the enemy in the open is brave, but it just gets you killed.

The word "coward" means someone who's not brave. It doesn't mean someone who's not stupid. It gets used in non-war contexts too - "he cowardly robbed a defenceless old woman." What's cowardly about that? Complete and utter scum, sure, but to be a coward you need to be running away from something you shouldn't. For some reason "coward" is frequently mistakenly used as a synonym for "scum." It's a bit weird really. I also believe that such usage (and similar) is problematic because it diminishes the subtlety of language.

[Scififan]

"We've had plenty of experience with sneak attacks. Pearl Harbor, the terrorists' nuking of San Diego, the destruction of our first Mars colony. It's a long and bloody history. Do you know what we learned from it? That a sneak attack is the first resort of a coward."

And that's a sentiment I've always had an issue with. Why "coward"? If it's war then, sure, charging headlong at the enemy in the open is brave, but it just gets you killed.

I think what Sinclair was trying to point is that even if it's necessary it's not something to be proud of.

[Riedquat]

"We've had plenty of experience with sneak attacks. Pearl Harbor, the terrorists' nuking of San Diego, the destruction of our first Mars colony. It's a long and bloody history. Do you know what we learned from it? That a sneak attack is the first resort of a coward."

And that's a sentiment I've always had an issue with. Why "coward"? If it's war then, sure, charging headlong at the enemy in the open is brave, but it just gets you killed.

I think what Sinclair was trying to point is that even if it's necessary it's not something to be proud of.

Sure, I get the sentiment, the mis-use of the word "coward" is just one of those things that gets on my nerves a little.

[Fianna]

If you're actively at war with someone, can it even be called a sneak attack? The enemy might not know you'll attack them at that specific place at that specific time, but they do know you're going to make some sort of attack.

[McAvoy]

If you're actively at war with someone, can it even be called a sneak attack? The enemy might not know you'll attack them at that specific place at that specific time, but they do know you're going to make some sort of attack.

Depends. Like D Day they spent alot of time and effort to trick Hitler and the Nazis they were going to attack somewhere else. Rommel wasn't there either I think attending his wife's birthday party and Hitler loved to sleep in.

But no one calls that a sneak attack.

Pearl Harbor was a sneak attack. 9-11 was a sneak attack.

I am also trying to remember there was a Roman general ordering a sneak attack on an opposing enemy force at night by attacking their camp while the troops slept. I suppose that would be an example of a sneak attack.